Europe between 1850 and
World War One: Mass Politics and State Authority

Conservative reaction after
1848

by end of 1851, conservative
order restored everywhere (including France under Louis Napoleon)

Conservative elites need to
find way to “control movements for manhood suffrage and nationalism, to use
these as props to support rule of traditional elites

Liberals, frightened by
1848, need to find a way to make change (extending voting rights, promoting free
trade, national unification, etc) without risking radical social revolution from
the lower classes

Socialists and the radical
left debate over how to make social revolution—through peaceful electoral
political means, through violent revolution, through terrorism? By organizing
mass political parties, or by organizing conspiratorial movements?

One case in which these
issues can be seen is England.

• Failure of the Chartist
Movement to win political reforms and extend voting rights in 1840s.

• Loose coalition of left
liberals, radical republicans, and socialists push for voting reform in 1850s

• Conservative Party (Tories)
led by Disraeli push for even wider voting reforms in late 1850s, based on
belief that the lower classes are basically conservative and nationalistic, and
will support Tories if they promote imperialism/patriotism

Another case is Prussia
(northern Germany)

Collapse of revolutionary
movement in 1849, King Fredrich Wilhelm back grants a constitution

Prussian constitution gives
King special executive authority: names ministers, controls diplomacy and
military, can disband legislature at will

Legislature’s main
power is control over budget

legislature elected by
universal manhood suffrage, but by voting curia, so votes of big landowners
count more than votes of peasants, urban workers, or the middle class

To put down left opposition,
LNB used police state tactics (spies, arrests, political trials) and
restrictions on civil liberties (no freedom of speech , press, or assembly in
1850s)

To draw support from wide
range of population, LNB granted universal manhood suffrage. He could claim
that France was democratic, and he could use mass support to defend himself
from critics. Repression prevented danger from the left, and his real
opposition came from monarchists. He could not repress them, because he needed
them to cooperate in governing vs the left.

To manipulate mass support,
LNB use propaganda skillfully and presented himself as “all things to all
people,” friend of the common man, friend of the worker, of the business man,
of the farmer, etc.

To boost mass support and
reduce danger of revolution, LNB initiated new social legislation, e.g.,
clearing out and re-building slum sections of cities, building sewer systems,
etc. Also re-legalized unions (although they were filled with police spies)

To boost mass support, LNB
emphasized the link between patriotism and foreign policy. Used French
intervention in Italy and French wars of imperial conquest in Asia and Africa
to rally the public “around the flag” and promote idea that his rule was
responsible for France’s status as a world power.

To build support from middle
classes and promote economic growth, LNB subsidized economic development, esp.
the RRs. Also promoted banking reforms to make more capital available to
business, and legal reforms to make it easier to form corporations.

All these measures had
multiple aims—one clear aim was turning the lower classes away from radical
politics and reducing the threat of radical (social) revolution.

The Crimean War (1854-56)
came in the middle of this decade of conservative reaction.

Russia was pursuing the goal
of expanding its control in Black Sea at expense of Turkey.

Austria saw this as threat
because of danger of Slavic nationalism, but stayed “neutral.” Prussia stayed
out of war but supported Russia.

France and England both
supported the Turks, out of fear that Russia would gain access to
Mediterranean. Two year war proved to be humiliating to Russia. It gained
minor territory, but its status as a Great Power was damaged. This would lead
to major reforms in Russia in the 1 860s.

1860s: A decade of
conservative-led change

Reforms in Russia. In early
1860s, the new Tsar Alexander II led a series of major reforms with the aim of
building up Russia’s economy and military. These included:

Abolishing serfdom, but
keeping the peasants tied to their villages, with village (not private)
ownership of land, and requiring that peasants pay the State for the cost of
emancipation (the State had paid serf owners for the loss of their “property”

Reorganizing the military

Creating a new legal system
based upon trials in open courts

Reorganizing education

Creating elected quasi-local
government agencies, etc.

Three crucial ideas to keep in
mind about these reforms:

1) they were change “from
above,” by the Autocratic regime, in an effort to keep Russia and world power
and preserve the system of Autocratic rule

2) they did successfully
accelerate the processes of capitalist economic development and urbanization in
Russia, together with all of the social changes that go along with such
processes (the growth of new social classes, etc.)

3) the limited and often
contradictory nature of these reforms (serfs freed but with little land and
required to pay the state for emancipation, local governments created but given
no real decision making authority, attempt to build rule of law at the same time
as continued centralized control of Autocratic regime that was not limited by
any constitution, etc) would contribute to great social and economic tensions.
This helps explain the revolutions in Russia in 1905 and 1917. Radical
intellectuals saw these reforms as disappointing half-measures that kept the
system of Autocracy (the Russian form of Absolutism) in place. As a
result, a radical revolutionary movement began to emerge in Russia in the 1860s.

Italian Unification:

In 1848, liberal movement for
Italian unification led by radical nationalists like G. Mazzini. When
(incomplete) unification finally occurred, it was largely the result of efforts
by Conservative statesman Count Cavour of Piedmont-Sardinia.

In the late 1858 Cavour
together with Louis Napoleon’s France launched a war against Austrian control
over much of Northern Italy. (LNB wanted to weaken Austria and wanted some
territorial gains [ Nice]). But in 1859, LNB backed out of the war (in part
afraid of political conflict with the Vatican). Cavour’s war with Austria was
largely successful, but Italy was still divided into multiple kingdoms.

Cavour did not want to work
with the more radical nationalist groups, because he feared any potential for
social revolution led by liberals (and especially by socialists). But in 1860 in
the southern parts of Italy, the leftist nationalist leader Garibaldi led a
successful rebellion/war against the Bourbon monarchy in Sicily and in southern
Italy.

The division between the
supporters of Cavour and those of Garibaldi was based on two major issues:
should a united Italy be a centralized state (Cavour’s view) or a federation;
and should unification leave the old aristocratic ruling class and the
wealthiest elements of the bourgeoisie in power (Cavour’s position). To cut off
Garibaldi’s advance, Cavour invaded central Italy (including the Papal States)
in August 1860 (with support from France). [ forces soon had to withdraw from
the Papal States] He then pressured Garibaldi into accepting the annexation of
the south into a “united” Italy under the control of Piedmont-Sardinia.

The Piedmontese King, Victor
Emmanual , now became the constitutional monarch of a “united” Italy. The new
government was based upon a highly centralized state system (with Turin as the
capital), with the institutions of Piedomont imposed on the rest of the country.
In practice, though, the country was hardly unified; deep regional loyalties and
rivalries remained, the country was far from any kind of cultural “national”
unity, and the danger of rebellion against the center was considerable.
Still, what Cavour had done was achieve “unity” from “above,” without any social
revolution that would have disrupted the power of existing elites.

Germany and unification in
the 1860s:

The revolutions of 1848 had
failed to unify Germany. In Prussia, King Fredrich Wilhelm had restored
monarchical rule and established a new “authoritarian” constitutional system
(previous lecture). Germany would be unified around Prussia in the 1 860s, as a
result of the efforts of King Wilhelm I and his brilliant conservative minister
Otto von Bismarck.

The death of Fredrich Wilhem
in 1861 brought to Prussian throne Wilhelm I, who believed that Prussia would
united Germany through its military and economic dominance. In 1861-62,
Wilhelm’s attempts to institute a new military buildup were blocked by liberals
in the legislature, who feared it would further strengthen the Junkers (and who
wanted a “citizens’ army”). This led to a constitutional crisis. Wilhelm
appointed Bismarck, a conservative Junker, as his prime minister. Bismarck
dissolved the parliament, repressed the left liberals, divided the opposition by
making promises of concessions to the right liberals, and in this was controlled
the legislature by the end of 1862. Bismarck laid out his agenda for
unification in his 1862 “blood and iron” speech. Unification through military
and economic might and ultra nationalism. The key question was, would Germany
unite around Prussia in North or Austria in South?. The Prussians under Bismarck
quickly strengthened their trade agreements with northern German states. But
unifying the rest of Germany would require war.

In 1866, a conflict with
Austria over who would politically dominate the territory of Holstein gave
Bismarck a chance to whip up ultra-nationalistic fervor in northern Germany in
favor of war. Prussia easily defeated Austria, which cemented its dominance in
the north. But Catholic southern German states resisted Prussian dominance and
would not join the new German confederation. Bismarck had united northern
Germany without any social revolution, in a way that put the Prussian elites in
power. Now, to do the same over the south, he would use a war against France, in
1870-71.

Louis Napoleon and France
in the 1860s:

Support for Louis Napoleon
began to disappear in the mid-1860s, due to conflicts with the Catholic Church
and the small business community and the re-emerging radicalism of the workers
movement. In response, and facing opposition from liberals in the parliament,
LNB made a series of concessions (e.g., he restored freedom of press and limited
free public assembly in 1868 and accepted parliamentary review of government
policies in July 1869). The new constitution of 1870 made significant
concessions to parliament, but it also recognized Louis Napoleon as the head of
state. Parliament began asserting its independence in early 1870, in particular
over issues of foreign policy. Parliament and LNB competed with each other to
appear “tougher” on the issue of Spanish succession, in which France opposed
Prussia’s efforts to place a member of Prussian King Wilhelm’s family on the
Spanish throne. Both factions in French politics hoped to use confrontation with
Prussia as a tool to secure their own domestic political goals.

The Franco-Prussian War of
1870-71:

On 19 July 1870, France
declared war on Prussia. The war was a disaster for France, and after several
major military defeats, LNB removed the Premier appointed by parliament and
again assumed control over all aspects of government. On 2 September 1870, LNB
was captured at the front in yet another French defeat. On 4 September, the
parliament declared France a Republic (the Third Republic) and formed a
“Government of National Defense.” But on 19 September, the Prussians placed
Paris under a state of siege. The city was blockaded and starved.

On 2 January 1871, the French
government capitulated to Prussia, and asked that it be allowed to hold new
elections before signing the peace treaty. Elections were held on 8 February,
and a National Assembly began meeting on 12 February. On 23 February 1871, the
Assembly appointed an old Liberal leader (Thiers) to form a new government. On
26 February, Thiers signed a peace treaty with the German Empire that 1) gave
Germany 500 sq. miles of economically important territory (Alsace and Lorraine),
with a population of 1.5 million; 2 required that France pay an indemnity. Under
the treaty, German troops were to occupy Paris on 1 March 1871.

The Paris Commune:

On 18 March, the remaining
population of Paris and the Paris National Guard refused to disarm and allow the
Germans to enter the city. When ordered to do so by the government, they
rebelled and seized control over the city. Thiers and the government then fled.
On 19 March the people of Paris began elections for the Paris Commune, an
absolutely democratic self-government. All men voted, and in most districts
women voted, too. The Commune began meeting on 28 March: in addition to
organizing the defense of the city, the Commune also instituted a large number
of democratic social reforms. On 6 April 1871, the French government and army
attacked the Commune. The Communards defended the city successfully until 21
May, when the army broke its way into the city. A week of bloody fighting
followed, and on 28 May 1871 the last fighters of the Commune were killed. Over
100,000 people were then arrested: many were executed, and thousands were
exiled. This was the last major popular uprising in France until the 1960s.
On 31 August 1871, Thiers was selected as President of the Third Republic. He
would be overthrown by conservative General MacMahonon in 1873. Political
dominance of the Third Republic would thereafter bounce back and forth between
conservatives and right-liberals.

German Unification and Its
Challenges:

In 1870-71, Bismarck and King
Wilhelm used the Franco-Prussian War to pull the remaining southern
principalities (except Austria) into a united German Empire. The German Empire
was declared on 21 January 1871.

Bismarck initially sought
broad political support for unification by appealing to center-liberal political
factions. But when in 1873 the world economy went into a depression (known
world-wide at the time as the “Great Depression”), and the German middle class
moved further to the right in its political sentiment, Bismarck abandoned his
policy of compromise with liberals and built a political of the center-right and
far right. This political alignment would dominate Germany through World War
One.

Social tensions in the
united Germany

Cultural Tensions--between
the Lutheran culture of the North and the Catholic culture of the South, made
worse by Bismarck’s policy of “Culture Wars” against Catholicism in the 1 870s

Social tensions--The Junkers
and other aristocrats were politically dominant but were increasingly
economically threatened. In particular, free trade policies would have
undermined their positions as agricultural capitalists.

The Middle Class was of
growing economic importance, but still lacked real political power.

The Lower Middle Class was
being “squeezed” by the growth of big business.

The peasants, especially in
the South, were threatened by the kulturkampf and by trade policies that
favored the Junkers.

The Working Class grew in
numbers as the economy industrialized, and workers in Germany were very
politically active. Although in the South, the Catholic political parties and
trade unions had much influence among workers, in the North the most important
political organization among workers was the German Social Democratic Labor
Party--the socialist party founded by Karl Marx.

Political tensions: The
right-center and conservative political parties-- mostly supported by the
Junkers and some big industrialists--rallied around Bismarck and dominated
politics, but they represented only a minority of the population. Most of the
middle class supported various “centerist” and liberal parties. But the Social
Democrats were by far the biggest political party.

By the 1 890s, the socialist
party had more than 1 million members. This posed a potential threat to both
the government and the middle class: The socialists had as their first goal
the end of Germany’s authoritarian system of constitutional monarchy and the
establishment of a democratic republic; the socialists’ longer term goal was
ending capitalism and replacing capitalist society with a socialist society,
in which there would be no private {or corporate] ownership of business,
industry, or land.

Policies to Promote
Conservative Stability in the German Empire, 1871-1914

Under Bismarck’s leadership
and even once Bismarck had been replaced in 1890, the German government
followed a complex strategy to restrain social and political tensions and hold
on to power. (When Emperor Wilhelm I died in 1888, the new Emperor, Wilhelm
II, found himself at odds with Bismarck; after a series of disagreements, he
pressured Bismarck to resign in 1890).

State support for big
business: the government both became a major consumer of industrial goods
(especially military industrial goods) and made legal changes that encouraged
the growth of big corporate conglomerates.

In particular, in made it
easier to form corporations--these have the advantage of being able to raise
large sums of capital by selling stock, and they protect investors from legal
claims against them as individuals. In Germany, large “cartels” formed that
integrated corporations vertically (so that a corporation might control all of
the industries that provide it with goods and services, thereby reducing costs
and increasing profits) and horizontally (so that a corporation can control
many or all of the companies in a particular industry, thereby eliminating
competition and increasing profits). This was in keeping with the wide-spread
trend away from laissez-faire and towards “organized capitalism.”

The Marriage of Iron and
Rye: to protect the incomes and power of the Junkers, the state imposed high
tariffs on imported grain. This raised the price of imported grain and gave an
advantage to the Junkers; whose large estates specialized in crops like rye.
But raising the cost of grain hurt industrialists--it meant that the cost of
living for workers was higher, and that forced industrialists to pay higher
wages. [ also hurt the dairy- farming peasants of the South...]. The
government’s pro-big business policies were in part a way of securing a
“balance” between the aristocrats and the industrialists--a marriage of Iron
(the industrialists) and Rye (the aristocrats).

Negative Integration: The
German government and its conservative supporters used all means within their
grasp to define “good Germans” as those who were loyal to the Emperor and the
government. Newspapers, churches, schools, and other shapers of public
attitudes all stressed that certain categories of people were
“un-German”--Jews, Gypsies, Poles and other ethnic minorities, and also
socialists, anarchists, and even liberals who were “too critical” of the
government. The point was to pressure people to conform politically and
socially.

Socialization: The
institutions responsible for socializing people--for teaching individuals how
to fit into society and how to behave, emphasized that one should act like a
“good German”--which meant conform politically and socially and respect and
accept the leadership of the conservative elites. These institutions included
schools, churches, universities, fraternities, the army, etc.

Social Imperialism: The
German government undertook a policy of colonial expansion in Africa and in
Asia during the 1 870s- 1914. This “imperialism” was partly motivated by
economic concerns, which we will discuss in a later lecture. But is had a
domestic political goal as well--the government used Germany’s various
victories in the colonies and its growing influence in the world to “rally
people around the flag.” The idea was that they could use “patriotism” to
silence political dissent.

Social welfare programs:
Bismarck (and the chancellors under Wilhelm II) understood that the socialists
were popular among workers because the socialists’ criticisms seemed to
explain the great difficulties that workers faced in their daily lives.
Bismarck outlawed almost all socialist party activities (the “anti-socialist
laws” of 1878 and the anti-socialist trade union laws of 1879), but also
introduced a number of social welfare programs designed to “take away the
socialists’ issues” by improving conditions for workers.

These reforms included a
medical treatment bill for industrial workers (1883), an accident insurance
act for industrial workers (1884), and the extension of insurance to
agricultural workers (1886). In 1890, when Bismarck resigned, the government
lifted the anti-socialist laws. but it continued issuing social reform
measures like the 1891 factory inspection act.

This combination of policies
may have prevented social tensions in Germany from boiling over into revolution.
But they also helped reinforce the authoritarian aspects of German political
culture, promoted ultra nationalism and intolerance towards minorities, and
helped push Germany along the path that would lead to World War One, as we will
see in a later lecture.